Legal Opinion
Auerbach v. Frank
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 1996No. 95-CV-32, 95-CV-620PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge.
No. 95-CV-32, an appeal from an injunc-tive order, requires us to consider under what circumstances a trial judge may enjoin a party pendente lite from pursuing related litigation in the courts of another state that also has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The consolidated appeal, No. 95-CV-620, is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. 1 We reverse the order in No. 95-CV-32 and affirm in No. 95-CV-620.
I. No. 95-CV-32 (Anti-suit Injunction)
A Factual Background
This interlocutory appeal arises from a suit…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Peck v. JennessSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Cole v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World AirlinesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Columbia Plaza Corporation v. Security National BankCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
- Eric T. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Blake v. Professional Travel Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- J.J. v. B.A.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Garcia v. AA Roofing Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.